Obama certain US Chamber of Commerce is threat to our democracy

Yeah, OK. I got the following e-mail from Organizing for America. It seems as though we have a threat to American democracy surrounding us from every hilltop. The US Chamber of Commerce. The real threat is politicians and bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. who ignore their oath of office and completely ignore the US Constitution.

This is the same damn playbook Democrats have been relying on for decades. Where’s the change that was promised. Yeah, the GOP is baaadddd. They want to take away your Social Security!

From Organizing for America – the political wing of the current Executive Branch – and signed by Mitch Stewart, its director.

“This is a threat to our democracy…And if we just stand by and allow the special interests to silence anybody who’s got the guts to stand up to them, our country’s going to be a very different place.”

That’s what the President just said about the Chamber of Commerce, a right-wing group spending $75 million to beat Democrats this fall, and reportedly taking money from foreign corporations — some even owned by foreign governments.

These groups are trying to buy our elections, backing candidates who want to tear down everything that makes the middle class strong in this country: things like Medicare, Social Security, even the minimum wage.

Reportedly taking money from foreign corporations … some owned by foreign governments! Oh my. Of course, the Obama administration has absolutely no proof this is going on, they just blindly made the accusation since they are unable to figure out if it has not happened.

That’s right … it’s not the facts or information in evidence, it’s the seriousness of the charge. Total crap. From The Washington Times referring to a David Axelrod interview on Face the Nation.

Democrats on Sunday renewed their attacks, accusing the U.S. Chamber of Commerce of using foreign money to influence midterm races, despite the Obama administration’s acknowledgment that it had no evidence the charge was true.

“I don’t know,” senior White House adviser David Axelrod said Sunday when asked on CBS’ “Face the Nation” whether the chamber was using dues from foreign chambers to finance attack ads, as the president implied twice last week.

Mr. Axelrod defended the administration’s attacks, along with a Democratic National Committee ad that began airing Sunday, by saying the answer can’t be known because of campaign-finance laws and First Amendment and privacy issues.

“Is that the best you can do?” host Bob Schieffer asked skeptically at one point.

Yup Bob … that’s all they have got.

36 replies
  1. RoBrDona
    RoBrDona says:

    The Chamber of Commerce is a threat to Obama's Communist agenda, and nothing else. They are the people that fight for the only real economic engine of growth in the U.S. which is small business.  The bourgoise are the enemy – they must lose rights, be taxed into the dust and corraled into camps to be re-educated.

    This is nothing else than part of a serious effort (directed from the top) calculated to disenfranchise existing capitalist entities to make way for the glorious "workers utopia" to come.

  2. GdavidH
    GdavidH says:

    Yet again the double standard in the main stream media is evident in full force. I remember being angry about the possibility that candidate Obama and the democrat party taking donations from palestinian groups and Hamas in '08.

     Crickets from the media about that.

     George Soros and his millions in funding the socialist takeover is the biggest threat to this country as far as I'm concerned. 

  3. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    I find it humorous that Øbama was a law instructor for a while.  He clearly has no concept of, or use for, the rules of evidence.  It is just a classic "Senator, how long have you been beating your wife" attack that is designed to put your opponent on the defensive.


    The best part of all was Chief Astroturd David Axelrod, asking the Chamber to prove a negative, i.e. "prove you didn't do this".  Would that he were so concerned about all the unverified credit card donations and credit card fraud donations given to Øbama under the names "Mickey Mouse" during the '08 election!


    Fraud and defamation have replaced hope and change for '10.

  4. JollyRoger
    JollyRoger says:

    I don't know what Barry's worried about- he'll still be able to impose his agenda by executive order for the next 26 months after this election!  I'm sure he'll find some opportunity which forces him to suspend elections or declare martial law.  But for his sake, I hope he's got the media on his payroll by then!

  5. chris-os
    chris-os says:

    "We ought to have full disclosure, full disclosure of all of the money that we raise and how it is spent. And I think that sunlight is the best disinfectant."

    guess who said this? Boehner in 2007!

    now every single Rep voted against the 'Disclose act" hmmmmm

    China, Russia and India-the corporations there are the ones who are contributing via the US Chamber to Reps like Boehner now, so he….they… are OK with non-disclosure.

    Wake up-these are the countries that are taking and want more of the  jobs that belong here and they want to kill small business-you know the small businesses that employ most of our country!

    No proof/ Ok all the chamber has to do is disclose their funding. Easy!

  6. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    And all the SEIU and other unions have to do is disclose theirs as well.  The "Disclose Act" was an inappropriate name given to legislation designed to expose donors to harrassment (see Target in Minnesota).  As for sunlight, let's see some of that illuminating transparency promised by Øbama before he goes pointing a finger.


    Now how about a little proof of these accusations by the Democrats and Øbama.  Or any proof.  Or are the Democrats, in their panic, going to honor Mr. Goebbels with the Big Lie?

  7. chris-os
    chris-os says:

    "SEIU and other unions have to disclose theirs as well."

    Dims, their money comes from American workers who pay their dues and also make donations to their respective PACS. American workers.

    Look up the chamber's new offices opened abroad to raise money from American and foreign corporations including those controlled by foreign governments.

    The money is co-mingled with their money in DC.

    The Chamber has repeatedly sent out issue alerts to these overseas contributors attacking Democratic efforts to encourage businesses to hire locally rather than

    outsourcing work to these foreign countries. These alerts have resulted in enough donations that they are able to run $75 million in attack ads to prevent this movement to stop outsourcing of OUR JOBS.

  8. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    "Dims, their money comes from American workers who pay their dues and also make donations to their respective PACS. American workers."

    Really?  Then you should be interested in yesterdays Wall Street Journal editorial (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703735804575536370151720874.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h) where you will find the money line:

    "The outrage over the Chamber is especially amusing considering the role of foreigners in U.S. labor unions. According to the Center for Competitive Politics, close to half of the unions that are members of the AFL-CIO are international. One man's corporate commingling is another's union dues."

    From yesterday's Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/10/11/spin_meter_foreign_money_in_politics_not_proven/):


    "But the chamber is hardly alone. A number of labor unions and advocacy groups that participate in politics have foreign affiliates and overseas donors. By law, these groups must make sure no foreign funds are used to advocate for or against political candidates. What's more, foreign companies with United States divisions can create political action committees that accept donations from their U.S. employees.  Those foreign-connected PACs have contributed more than $12 million to political candidates this election cycle, with more than half going to Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that tracks political money."

    In both, there is also a discussion of how the Democrats are scrambling for cover after making these unsupported statements, and how the Democrats in Congress are using this as a political issue in their "investigations".


    And how about ACORN comingling of federal funds illegally used as political money.  Or federal money going to Planned Parenthood being illegally used for abortions?


  9. djt
    djt says:

    It almost doesn't matter if it was done before or which side may be right in all this. The bottom line is its a losing strategy for the white house and any democrat that goes along with it. The timing and vagueness of the charge smacks of desperation. And now that they've started it, even though its been largely reputed by even CBS news, they have to stick with it. Whatever momentum the GOP lost with the "pledge to america", obama gave them back with this dumb attack.

  10. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    The Democrats are in full defense mode, and the lame, fraudulent and panicky attacks are proof of that.  I thought they were supposed to ride on their accomplishments.


    When your "accomplishments" are a negative when you run for reelection, are they really accomplishments?

  11. chris-os
    chris-os says:

    DJT< the timing is because <strong>the news JUST broke last week about the chamber.

    This added to Rove's Crossroads, the Koch brother's American's for Prosperity-a tidalwave of the selling of our democracy after the Repub justices overturning a century of precedent with Citizens United-then the "disclose act", which was just voted down,.

    American democracy is being captured by the most powerful economic interests on the planet.

    And yes, democrats have also capitulated to corporate interests for money in the past.

    This will also stay an issue after the election-it has to.

  12. Steve M
    Steve M says:

    In Oct. 2008, I thoroughly tested the Obama campaign donation site as well as the McCain site. Nobody on the left gave a hoot about where the Obama campaign funding was coming from. McCain's site took the step to validate the address associated with the card, Obama's did not. Obama took my $10 even though I provided a false name, false address, false employer and a zip code that does not exist. Money was laundered through credit and debit cards you can buy at grocery stores.

  13. RoBrDona
    RoBrDona says:

    It isn't "news" that broke, it is unsubstantiated propaganda from a liberal blog that was picked up by the White House. The pot calling the kettle black. Most of this has to do with Democratic fury at the new level playing field created by the Disclose Act. It is convenient not to mention that in the last two election cycles the Dems outspent the Reps by huge margins. Somewhere around half of the donors of that money were not disclosed. Now that the spending is roughly even (and no, don't even try to say that the R's are outspending – that is a classic ruse as they never add in the unions' $250M being spent this cycle) the Democrats are running around like the sky is falling. Poetic justice.

  14. chris-os
    chris-os says:

    Did you expect Fox news to break the Chamber news?

    OK, I got it…scream "jobs, jobs, jobs…"

    Then support the legislators that voted down eliminating the tax credit for sending a company's jobs overseas and cheering the foreign money that is buying our legislators to keep rewarding corporations for staying and pushing more of their business overseas.

    Got it!

    Makes sense.


  15. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    The media references I gave you were perfectly legitimate, chris: the Wall Street Journal and the Boston Globe.  I believe that the New York Times has also written on this, and also disagree with you.  Where are you getting your information?  Shouldn't American unions be composed of Americans?


    It isn't news if it is a contrived story; it is propaganda.

  16. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    Why is it alright for Big Government to tell us how bad Big Business is, but it is verboten for Big Business to tell us how bad Big Government is?

  17. NH-Jim
    NH-Jim says:

    If foreign money enters into the political arena, is it not because most businesses now have foreign interests?

    Take a trip to Home Depot, Target, Walmart, CVS, etc. and add up all the products made over in China.  When you visit a store for a certain product, do you study the "Made in XXXX" statement to determine your purchase even if it means paying $1, $2, double for the item?  No amount of legislation will bring this production back to USA.  For it is the American buyer who determines if a product remains to be manufactured in the states.

    Remember, it is now a global economy.  If you want "to spread the wealth", why not do it through business (capitalism) and hard work. thus, bringing 3rd world economies up to our standard of living.  If you want to protect "our jobs" from moving overseas, is that not isolationism?

  18. Anne-EH
    Anne-EH says:

    Not surprised by this charge brought about by the Obama White House and the Democrats. When things do not look good in your favor, you will go as low as possible, to the level of the gutter to project accusations that are simply just not true.

  19. TomL
    TomL says:

    I just don't get it. The Chamber of Commerce has millions of middle income small business owners as members and they are the backbone of what is right in this country. They create a large percentage of jobs, spend money and pay taxes on the local level and are an asset to any community. Now they are considered an "Enemy of the State". It's time to "drain the swamp" even Soros considers it a waste of money to support the Democrats and is getting out of the way of the avalanche. The revolution is coming on November 2nd, see to it in a voting booth near you.

  20. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    Apparently, we did "get you", if that is your response to the lies, libel and fraud we have pointed out about Øbama and the Democrats.  Your response is a perfect example of reductio ad absurdum, i.e. that Øbama would personally check any checks coming into his campaign coffers.   There are readily available mechanisms to do that.  Assuming you want to follow the law, that is.  The McCain campaign managed to do it.


    The Democrat playbook includes specific instructions to "accuse your opponent of what you are doing, both putting them on the defensive (senator, when did you stop beating your wife meme), and covering up what, in fact, you are doing."


    Truly classic.

  21. chris-os
    chris-os says:

    Toml , you are confusing The U S Chamber with the local Chambers which represent the small business owner and promote economic development in their respective towns.

    Dims, 1. easy to disprove the allegations, just release the donors list…right?

    2. Why did they fight "The Disclose Act"?…hmmm



  22. Steve M
    Steve M says:

    This is as stupid as someone challenging people to prove Obama was not born in Kenya or prove he's not a Muslim. "Just release the list" is not an answer. The United States has had – from before its birth – privacy and anonymity when it comes to speech, starting with the Federalist Papers as far as I know. That said, the trend to publish the names, address and donation amounts of individual donors – like with the California propositions – is downright disgusting. People or groups of people being targeted, harassed, assaulted and businesses being destroyed for their position on an issue is outright dangerous and does NOTHING to promote free speech. But that's what many left extremists want right? Alinski 101 used against the regular population.

    As for fighting the Disclose Act … maybe because it's friggin unconstitutional?

  23. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    Are you talking about Øbama's donor list from 2008?  If so, then lead the way.  Don't point a finger when the finger is pointing back at you.  After you, my dear Gaston…


    Why is the "Disclose" act an uncontitutional farce?  1) special exemptions mean money will be funneled through the exempted organizations; 2) unions are not bound by the same rules as the employers, and can effectively seize dues for political purposes; 3) it is yet another "fast tracked" bill not subject to proper scrutiny; 4) it violates the First Amendment, particularly the free association clause;  5) the mandated lists of contributors, members of organizations etc. allows the government to accumulate private information on people simply exercising their right to support a political candidate.


    The list goes on, but that should suffice.

  24. djt
    djt says:

    As I said earlier, I think this Democratic strategy from the original post is a lame act of desperation, but since we seem to be exploring it further…I have a question, not a challenge (no need to get defensive anyone), just a question.

    Lets use Blumy and Linda in a hypothetical situation. Blumy contends she is farming out wwe merchandising jobs to foreign manufacturers. If she was getting $$ from these corporations to pay for her anti Blumy commercials, and he was getting $$ from US manufacturers in hope of gettting some work, or if just one of those things were happening, would that not be relevant information for a voter to have? And further, if Blumy eventually somehow steered some work to the US company that helped him get elected, or Linda the same with her foreign donor, would that not be relevant information? and perhaps, yet another "symptom of the disease?" And how would we know if the source of he $$ were not disclosed?

  25. chris-os
    chris-os says:

    Sure Steve, I want to have the choice of voting for one candidate or another both of whom have had millions poured into their campaigns without knowing where their money is coming from, because disclosure of that would violate free speech.

    While we are at it, let's get rid of The Freedom of Information Act.

    Let's just have a clandestine government run by foreigners.

  26. Steve M
    Steve M says:

    Chris – you seem to be mixing subjects at will. There are already significant regulations and transparency requirements for campaigns, and the DISCLOSE Act has nothing to do with campaigns, yet everything to do with companies and "special-interest" groups, their advertising, and where they get their money … yet special interest groups who happen to have more than 500,000 members are mysteriously "exempt" from the legislation …

  27. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    Ah yes, chris once again resorts to misdirection and reductio ad absurdum arguments.  A sure sign you are on the losing side of an argument/debate.


    If you don't like the two candidates, then I suggest you vote "present".

Comments are closed.